Prof. Dr. Anis H. Bajrektarevic*
Post Scriptum, 20 years’ after
Marking exactly 20 years since the author’s proposal to the OSCE to form a Working Group on Demographic Renewal in Europe – it is worth to revisit that document.
Back then, the delegates at the Ministerial in Prague (and at numerous OSCE events since) met this policy proposal with genuine interest, as it was addressing the most pressing security issue that Europe has ever faced in its history. However, soon after, the Secretariat’s answer was the following; the OSCE is not an adequate forum to discuss demography, as there is no willingness among Member States to entrust the Organization with such a mandate. Moreover, the highly disturbing demographic trends in Europe have not even been recognized by the OSCE MS as the single greatest threat to Europe’s security and its sustainable future, before this or any other pan-European forum. (Eg. the European Union followed that same pattern too: www.ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_situation/responses/a15566_en.pdf ; a15566_en.pdf )
(The fact that the continent’s demographic renewal remains comprehensively unaddressed is not only strange, but also undermines Europe’s global position and reputation on the world stage. There is no serious scholar from the American continent, Africa or Asia who -when talking about Europe – does not list demography as the gravest problem. Why do European intellectuals and security specialists meet this with silence?)
Thus, 20 years later, the largest planetary security mechanism – the OSCE, has shown persistence in dealing with some aspects of demography; eg. trafficking as segment of migrations. One may say; a peripheral and nomadic, fragmented and sporadic, and decoupling fashion of addressing the problem will never bring betterment. Situation of today is a pure consequences of the way we then formulated our challenges, determined our conclusions, and our overall course of action. We still have our chance.
Read the following, 20 years old, lines and judge for yourself.
13th OSCE ECONOMIC FORUM Prague, Czech Republic 23–27 May 2005
27 May 2005 Closing Plenary: OSCE as a Platform for Dialogue and Co-operation
www.osce.org/files/f/documents/1/7/14857.pdf ( EF.NGO/9/05 )
Green/policy paper:
Towards the creation of the osce task force on (the future of) human capital
Recognizing its strategic opportunity and grasping its generational/historic responsibility, the OSCE backed by its MS should create the Task Force on The Future of Human Capital[2]. For this tomorrow that starts now, our common future holds us fully accountable today.
Background:
The Prodi and Barroso Commissions have both repeatedly stressed that: “at present, some of our world trading partners compete with primary resources, which we in the EU/Europe do not have. Some compete with cheap labor, which we do not want. Some compete on the back of their environment, which we cannot accept.”
Ambitiously visioning Europe as the knowledge based-economy, the Commission’s instrument referred to as the Lisbon agenda links social and economic prosperity with the so-called knowledge triangle: research (creation of knowledge); development/innovation (application of knowledge); and education (dissemination of knowledge).
The recent EC memo (M.05/1999/090605 – Com. S & R) states “that for each extra percent in public R&D, there is an extra 0,17% growth in productivity. To put this into context, the average annual labor productivity growth in the Eurozone was 1,2% between 1995 and 2003. For every 0,1% increase in R&D intensity boosts output per capita growth by 0,3 – 0,4%.”
Finally, the memo claims that “an increased budget for European R&D could have a major impact on employment creating as many as 1 mil. jobs by 2030” by simply supporting future-oriented industries (such as the Bio-informatics, Space applications, Nano-technology and the like).
But we should ask: jobs for whom?
The ongoing Lisbon mid term review debate is centered on a main principle: A resolute “no” to any trade-off between economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection.
Environmental protection surely includes preservation of biodiversity – meaning protection and promotion of LIFE – in all its forms.
This Lisbon ‘no-trade-off principle’ accommodates Europe’s development thinking close to the matrix of sustainable development which per definition formulates development (reaffirming its human in addition to the economic dimension) as any societal activity which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the needs of future generations (certainly deprived from any hidden environmental, social or health related costs).
Last week in Brussels, as a direct follow-up to the January 2005 JHA Green Paper, the EC Vice President Frattini and Commissioner Spidla jointly opened a public hearing.
As one of explanatories to enhance a public debate on subject, the EC memo (M.05/206/140605) reports the following: “Labour and skills shortages are already noticeable in a number of sectors and they will tend to increase. On 1 January 2003 migrants represented around 3.5% of the total population in the EU-25. In 2003 the total population increased by 1.9 million, mainly due to net migration of 1.7 million (STAT/04/105); Eurostat (STAT/05/48) estimates that “over the next two decades [2005-2025] the total population of the EU-25 is expected to increase by more than 13 million inhabitants […] mainly due to net migration, since total deaths in the EU-25 will outnumber total births from 2010.”
These figures[3], meant as a supporting argument to the economic migrants admission initiative, cannot hide the tragic meaning of the STAT findings – which is that Europe will very soon (2010), and for the first time in its history—despite all eventual investments in R&D—be able to produce everything except (its own new) lives[4]. It follows that only response to this situation is a selective/semi-permeable intake of migrants. This short-term compensatory solution/outcry cannot be disassociated from hidden /mid-to-long term societal and security costs[5] .
In business terms, this approach would be classified as “everything but development”: an economic strategy which relies on an increased volume of imports to substitute for an inadequate capital and production base.
Shall we blame the EC for not inventing the Commission’s portfolio: Promotion of life?!
It would be very wrong to hold the Commission responsible (here the Tampere as well as the Hague program are explicit; MS are in charge for particular quotas)[6]. The Barroso Commission is limited in resources, mandates and instruments – as scrutinized by the Council. (At least, the Commission keeps up on initiatives !) The viable long range policy/ies on such a key issues as the future of our human capital (and its composition) primarily rest upon the MS.
Conclusions:
The OSCE should recognize this as its strategic opportunity by playing a decisive pan-European role in the matter. The benefits of such pro-active stance are numerous: Externally, the Organization can take a lead by formulating an interagency/inter-IOs approach to the benefit of its wider circle of MS (far beyond ability of institutions and instruments of either CoE or EU). Internally, the OSCE can recover both its standing and the purpose of its mission at the times when its first basket is de facto taken over by NATO (PfP), and its third basket is a source of disputes (including the budgetary ones) over its FOs interpretations.
Recognizing a call of its MS for reform, the new OSCE Sec–G. will inevitably challenge departmental inertia and the influence of the bureaucratic status quo. Rejection of anti-intellectualism and return to substantive initiatives, beyond the pure rotation of seasonal themes and nomadic form of preparatories to ‘reflect’ upon them, would give added value to annual forums. Additionally, that would necessitate the MS holding the chairmanship to capacitate more than the limited technical objectives of producing an annual report, dealing with conferences’ logistics, and staffing the organization with a few secondments in between.
The very creation of the OSCE Task Force on (Future) Human Capital could be a sign that the Organization is alive to the current challenges and fully assumes its share of responsibilities for future generations.
As an example, the Republic of Slovenia, the country currently holding the OSCE Chairmanship (CiO), will be by far the oldest nation in Europe by the year 2050. Only 45 years from now, the median age of Slovenians will have moved from the current (and barely reversible) 40,3 to an (irreversible) 53,3 years.
This will be coupled with a projected 21% total population decline for the period 2004-2050[7] . Demographic trends for other European nations are quite similar to the above.
In his last week Washington Post article, Samuelson calls this “The End of Europe” [8].
Can we tomorrow claim that we didn’t know, that we didn’t have institutions and instruments to analyze the developments critical to our own existence?[9]
The OSCE offers a unique setting: matching the geographic scope and three-dimensional mandates – baskets. (Since its CSCE times, the FORA has transformed from a normative to an operational organization with the wide FO presence.) The Task Force on (Future) Human Capital can be easily included into the existing mandate.
Though a dangerous place to live, pre-Helsinki Europe was inhabited by young and dynamic boomers with stamina and a vision of the future. History of tomorrow is not yet written, but one is certain: Any (horror-scenario marginalized) post-OSCE Europe would be an equally dangerous place, but this time of over-aged and demoralized populations in total activity decline and human retreat.
It is accurate to conclude this addendum to my May 2005 Green/Policy Paper (EF Prague), by quoting Jean Monet: “If you have an insoluble problem – enlarge the context.”
